RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the line we are going with and that is how we reacehed our decision.
You're skimming the rule, not reading it:
can use a bastard sword two handed as a martial weapon
can use a bastard sword as a two handed martial weapon
There's a difference, even if people are used to skiming ovr text adn jsut filing in teh blakns wiht there assumtions and therefore don't notice it.
|
I was saying this specific weapon is treated as it is two-handed for the purpose of handiness. I know that is true.
Well, you may have a religious faith that makes you 'know' this, but what you don't have is RAW, which you would need to convince everyone and not just the equally religious.
RAW, it's a one-handed weapon in every way.
No part of it's description says it's ever treated as if it were a two-handed weapon. This language is available, like with Jotungrip, bit cannot be assumed in its absence, like the lance.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm going by RAW, you're making stuff up. It doesn't say what you want it to say, so you imagine that the lack of it saying what you want somehow implies what you want it to say.
That won't persuade a non-believer!
|
Wow, Malachi got tired of being beat up on the other thread, he had to take this one off topic?
To drag this thread on topic, based on the way the other thread is going and the evidence gathered to support the position, I wouldn't be too surprised if Paizo did port 3.5's interpretation forward; after all of this back-and-forth, we find that the bastard sword is a two-handed weapon after all. It doesn't change anything if it is a two-handed weapon, other than an extra 5 h.p.
Now, before those of you who are going to nerd-rage nerd-rage on me, think about this for a moment: they said "no response required". They didn't actually answer the question. You presume that such a response automatically means that the answer is shown to be that it is a one-handed weapon because that is your personal bias. Did the thought cross your mind that they are choosing to not answer this question directly because they are going to answer it as part of the other thread instead? Let that thought marinate for a little while before you answer.
Now, I'm not saying that it is a two-handed weapon, I am merely saying that I could understand the basis of such a ruling and I'm not going to be butt-hurt if they do answer it that way.
|
|
I don't know how else we can write "for the purposes of determining who may wield it and how they may do so" in order for it to stick. Nobody has ever tried to claim it's a two-handed weapon or magically becomes so as soon as you start grabbing it with another hand or if you don't have the EWP feat.
But you do say that it is treated as a two-handed weapon without the feat!
Unfortunately for you, that's not what the rules say! You made it up!
|
|
I don't know how else we can write "for the purposes of determining who may wield it and how they may do so" in order for it to stick. Nobody has ever tried to claim it's a two-handed weapon or magically becomes so as soon as you start grabbing it with another hand or if you don't have the EWP feat.But you do say that it is treated as a two-handed weapon without the feat!
Unfortunately for you, that's not what the rules say! You made it up!
Again with all the shouting. Why must you make my ears hurt so?
Whether or not that is what the rules say doesn't matter, because that's how it works. So call it whatever you want, it still operates as if it were a two-handed weapon (minus the EWP, of course). If you can't use it in one hand, but you HAVE to use it in two hands, but you don't want to call it "using as if a two-handed weapon" (even though it works "as if a two-handed weapon"), how should we refer to it?
I don't know how else we can write "for the purposes of determining who may wield it and how they may do so" in order for it to stick. Nobody has ever tried to claim it's a two-handed weapon or magically becomes so as soon as you start grabbing it with another hand or if you don't have the EWP feat.But you do say that it is treated as a two-handed weapon without the feat!
Unfortunately for you, that's not what the rules say! You made it up!
No, I don't. Never have. I say it's treated as a two handed weapon for the purposes of determining who may wield it and how they may do so. Those are two entirely different things. I'm not sure why you're so vehemently insisting I say things that I'm clearly not.
And I've made nothing up.
Then... if it is never a two handed weapon, but always remains a one handed weapon, there should be no argument that you cannot use a large one in two hands, since that is explicitly how innappropriate weapon sizes work.
And since, when used in two hands, martial proficiency is explicitly granted, a one handed weapon, wielded in two hands because of innappropriate size, with martial weapon proficiency, is completely legal by the RAW.
I don't think anybody has ever said it's impossible to wield an oversized Bastard Sword. You'd just need the EWP feat to do it efficiently, since you treat it like a two-handed weapon for the purposes of determining ability to wield it (per our reading of the rule, historical FAQ, current developer statements, the iconic character, etc.).
I was saying this specific weapon is treated as it is two-handed for the purpose of handiness. I know that is true.Well, you may have a religious faith that makes you 'know' this, but what you don't have is RAW, which you would need to convince everyone and not just the equally religious.
RAW, it's a one-handed weapon in every way.
No part of it's description says it's ever treated as if it were a two-handed weapon. This language is available, like with Jotungrip, bit cannot be assumed in its absence, like the lance.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm going by RAW, you're making stuff up. It doesn't say what you want it to say, so you imagine that the lack of it saying what you want somehow implies what you want it to say.
That won't persuade a non-believer!
I have never made stuff up, and I am right a lot more than I am wrong, even when the RAW goes against me. I am not the one ignoring the rules and evidence to the contrary.
Back to me and making stuff up I don't need to. As an example I knew haste could be used RAI with natural attacks despite it saying "held weapons". I have a good enough understanding of the rules that I can interpret intent, so in a case like this when I have examples that support my case there is no doubt that I am right.
I am sure that if you found one quote saying the feat gets rid of the penalty you would want me to accept it, but you deny all evidence to contrary.
Malachi once again you are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rules.
This weapon is two-handed for the purpose of handiness.
|
|
Why do you assume that the Iconic Amiri took the feat only after she picked up the large sized one?
That's not how they build NPCs. The build it first and then come up with the story.
IF they had truly wanted to make it UNABLE to be wielded in 1 hand without the EWP, regardless of the -4 non-proficiency, this would have solved it instantly, and required even less text in the book than it has now. Smaller wordcount, no argument, what possible reason could there be to not do this?
You think the rule is written incorrectly and that the wording needs to be changed to make it clearer for you. The devs might see it differently.
Why do you assume that the Iconic Amiri took the feat only after she picked up the large sized one?
I don't. But when James Jacobs says that she needs the feat to be able to wield the oversized Bastard Sword at all, I take him at his word.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't use it in one hand, but you HAVE to use it in two hands, but you don't want to call it "using as if a two-handed weapon" (even though it works "as if a two-handed weapon"), how should we refer to it?As a one-handed weapon used in two hands.
Y'know, like the rules of the game say to.
And that's different than "as a two-handed weapon" how?
|
|
I think that everyone who was in this argument in 3.x knows that it was written incorrectly, as the intent of only being able to wield it in 2 hands without the EWP was the dev stance then, and even they agreed that the language needed changing to reflect this.
Do you have access to anything with the 3.5 developers saying they knew they needed to change the wording? I'm not being dickish, I'd actually like to read something like this.
|
|
I knew the same as you did re:haste/unarmed strike, and posted to that effect.
Malachi once again you are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rules.
I am following the rules. The rules on weapon proficiency, the rules on weapon category, the rules on using weapons in one or two hands and the rules on using an inappropriately-sized weapon are the rules I am following precisely.
I can quote all of these rules if you like. I can copy&paste like a demon!
You are following a rule which doesn't exist. Namely, a rule which says that if a one-handed weapon can't be used in one hand then it counts as a two-handed weapon when determining who can use it and how.
Quote that rule.
This weapon is two-handed for the purpose of handiness.
I require you to quote the section in the CRB which says this.
I think that everyone who was in this argument in 3.x knows that it was written incorrectly, as the intent of only being able to wield it in 2 hands without the EWP was the dev stance then, and even they agreed that the language needed changing to reflect this.
Which is why I ask how you explain that people who knew this was an issue, knew the changes that had already been discussed to avoid this issue, and agreed with the reasoning behind that stance and the resultant headache, would not take the opportunity when starting out fresh to move the weapon entry in the weapon table (which is the only place that needs edited to make your stance undeniably clear), and bypass the whole thing.
I don't KNOW it. Do you have a link?
Also would you mind explaining the FAQ which says the feat allows you to wield it in one hand?
Note:It does not say in one hand without no penalty.
|
|
And that's different than "as a two-handed weapon" how?If you can't use it in one hand, but you HAVE to use it in two hands, but you don't want to call it "using as if a two-handed weapon" (even though it works "as if a two-handed weapon"), how should we refer to it?As a one-handed weapon used in two hands.
Y'know, like the rules of the game say to.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Note that a one-handed weapon used in two hands is a different thing than a two-handed weapon. It doesn't say 'treat a one-handed weapon used in two-hands as a two-handed weapon'.
Note also that a one-handed weapon made for a large creature counts as a two-handed weapon for a medium creature, while that creature could not use a large two-handed weapon at all. So that's a significant difference, as a bastard sword, being a one-handed weapon, becomes a large two-handed weapon, while if it were a two-handed weapon this would not be possible.
Since there ate differences, it's not okay to make up your own rule saying that a one-handed weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of who can wield it and when.
I challenge you to quote this imaginary rule.
This thread is only 3 pages, and I did not see it. Yes I just checked. Who posted the information?
If it was repeated so many times it can't be that hard to find again.
Telling us it is here, but we just missed it makes me think you misread something.
Also would you mind explaining the FAQ which says the feat allows you to wield it in one hand?Note:It does not say in one hand without no penalty.
Which FAQ? the one on the cleric domain?
If it's that one, getting proficiency means there would be no penalty to even discuss either way, so why would it be brought up at all?
It matters because the feat allowing you to wield the weapon, and it only getting rid of a penalty are not the same thing.
As written in the FAQ it allows you to wield the weapon. That is no way equal to getting rid of a penalty.
As written it supports my interpretation, but if it said it got rid of a penalty it would support your interpretation.
|
|
And that's different than "as a two-handed weapon" how?If you can't use it in one hand, but you HAVE to use it in two hands, but you don't want to call it "using as if a two-handed weapon" (even though it works "as if a two-handed weapon"), how should we refer to it?As a one-handed weapon used in two hands.
Y'know, like the rules of the game say to.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Note that a one-handed weapon used in two hands is a different thing than a two-handed weapon.
Note also that a one-handed weapon made for a large creature counts as a two-handed weapon for a medium creature, while that creature could not use a large two-handed weapon at all. So that's a significant difference, as a bastard sword, being a one-handed weapon, becomes a large two-handed weapon, while if it were a two-handed weapon this would not be possible.
Since there ate differences, it's not okay to make up your own rule saying that a one-handed weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of who can wield it and when.
I challenge you to quote this imaginary rule.
*sigh*
Do you still feel that a character without the EWP can use the bastard sword one-handed?
|
|
This thread is only 3 pages, and I did not see it. Yes I just checked. Who posted the information?
If it was repeated so many times it can't be that hard to find again.
Telling us it is here, but we just missed it makes me think you misread something.
For the record, I think he is referring to the "other" thread. This one is starting to interbred with that one (which I kind-of had a feeling would happen when I started the thread).
Since there ate differences, it's not okay to make up your own rule saying that a one-handed weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of who can wield it and when.
I challenge you to quote this imaginary rule.
Nobody made up the rule. It's clearly inferable from the text in place, the historical FAQs, current developer statements, and the Iconic Character, among other things. We've all stated this multitudinous times. That you keep claiming we're "making things up" is, frankly, insulting at this point. That you do not agree with the interpretation does not mean that the interpretation is utterly invalid.
I don't remember anyone saying it over there either...
I only remember the 3.0 FAQ quote which contradicted the other 3.0 FAQ quote. Either way the 3.5 FAQ would have taken precedent. If he has a newer 3.5 quote I would like to see it.
Best guess is that they simply intended it to function the same way, and figured everybody would follow along, considering the precedent. Making it a two-handed weapon outright changes how it functions re: combat maneuvers, HPs, damage bonuses, etc.
|
|
Nobody made up the rule. It's clearly inferable from the text in place
Inferable...but not written? There no need to infer an alternative to the rules which already exist and cope magnificently with using a one-handed weapon in two hands.
the historical FAQs
But not PF FAQs, nor RAW.
current developer statements
But not RAW.
and the Iconic Character
Who has a perfectly legitimate feat, which she doesn't actually need to wield the weapon she acquired after training with medium-sized bastard swords as she was growing up.
among other things.
But absutely none of these 'other things' are RAW.
I'm going by the RAW. You're not.
I'm sorry if the accusation of 'making stuff up' offends you, but you are making these 'other things' trump the RAW! And I do have a problem with that!
'I'm sorry, your honour, I know that the Second Amendment doesn't actually say I can shoot schoolchildren, but surely the Right to Bear Arms implies that I can! Guns are for shooting people, so the right to bear them implies the right to fire them! And that implies the right to fire them at people! And schoolchildren are people! A clear, clear implication from the right to bear arms, and surely the intent of the amendment is more important than the words actually written down. Right your honour?'
Yeah... i was. the interbleeding is also why I refered to 700+ posts.
And... Hangar is the one who foung it then
3.5 FAQ wrote:
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or
bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So, in 3.5 FAQ they had this question. Why would they not just list it under 2 handed weapons this time to avoid this headache, and put "special" in the attributes line to lead you to the EWP to get them in 1 hand?
I posted that before I even started the other thread, and it supports what I have been saying, which is that you need the feat to use it in one hand.
The reason the others don't want to accept it is because it list the weapon as a two handed weapon which disagrees with the book. I don't agree with the FAQ's explanation, but I do agree with the end result.
They did not change it because they felt like the FAQ showing intent would be enough. On top of that 3.5 was not as big on errata as Paizo is.
PS:That still does not support your post saying a change was coming.
Nobody made up the rule. It's clearly inferable from the text in placeInferable...but not written? There no need to infer an alternative to the rules which already exist and cope magnificently with using a one-handed weapon in two hands.
the historical FAQsBut not PF FAQs, nor RAW.
current developer statementsBut not RAW.
and the Iconic CharacterWho has a perfectly legitimate feat, which she doesn't actually need to wield the weapon she acquired after training with medium-sized bastard swords as she was growing up.
among other things.But absutely none of these 'other things' are RAW.
I'm going by the RAW. You're not.
I'm sorry if the accusation of 'making stuff up' offends you, but you are making these 'other things' trump the RAW! And I do have a problem with that!
'I'm sorry, your honour, I know that the Second Amendment doesn't actually say I can shoot schoolchildren, but surely the Right to Bear Arms implies that I can! Guns are for shooting people, so the right to bear them implies the right to fire them! And that implies the right to fire them at people! And schoolchildren are people! A clear, clear implication from the right to bear arms, and surely the intent of the amendment is more important than the words actually written down. Right your honour?'
You know these forums are here to find RAI primarily(how the game is intended to be played). So with the information you now have what do you think the PDT will say is the rule once they chime in?
Your example is also poor because there are laws against killing people and the shooter would need an exception to be able to bypass that law. With that aside the laws don't work like PF rules. The laws work more by the letter of the law. That is why they are written in legalese to try to shutdown any loopholes. The devs intend for us to use common sense. Most GM's would not allow a camel to climb a vertical surface on its own, as an example, even if by its stats, it had a high climb bonus.
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.
I would say the same, but in reverse. All YOU have done is throw insults with no logic, and ignore proof. If you have a counter to the evidence present it. If not I won't miss your quotes which have no substance.
You can come back and thank me later when I am correct again.
|
|
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.
So, did you hide the post that had this:
Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11
It really isn't a silly argument when we have an FAQ that supports our position.
|
|
You know these forums are here to find RAI primarily(how the game is intended to be played).
Yes. Except in the rules forum.
So with the information you now have what do you think the PDT will say is the rule once they chime in?
They may very well say that you can't use a bastard sword in one hand at all if you don't have EWP. They cannot say that you can't use a large one in two hands without proficiency, because MWP gives you proficiency because you're using it two handed. To make it otherwise would require an errata, an actual change in how the rules work. And if they do, they better think the implications of their chosen wording through!
Your example is also poor because there are laws against killing people and the shooter would need an exception to be able to bypass that law.
And PF has rules on using one-handed weapons in two hands, and there would need to be an exception in the bastard sword description to be able to bypass that rule.
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.So, did you hide the post that had this:
It really isn't a silly argument when we have an FAQ that supports our position.Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11
He either won't reply, or it will be an insult, but in case he is still watching:
The FAQ does not say it removes a penalty if you use the weapon in one hand. It says the feat allows the weapon to be used in one hand. Those are two very different things.
I'm sorry if the accusation of 'making stuff up' offends you, but you are making these 'other things' trump the RAW! And I do have a problem with that!
'I'm sorry, your honour, I know that the Second Amendment doesn't actually say I can shoot schoolchildren, but surely the Right to Bear Arms implies that I can! Guns are for shooting people, so the right to bear them implies the right to fire them! And that implies the right to fire them at people! And schoolchildren are people! A clear, clear implication from the right to bear arms, and surely the intent of the amendment is more important than the words actually written down. Right your honour?'
Stop being asinine. This is patently ridiculous. Rules as Written includes that which is directly inferable from the existent language. That's how language works. That's how laws work. The Second Amendment no more implies the ability to wantonly shoot children than the Fighter Bonus Feat description implies that you can replace any feats and not just those specifically taken as Fighter Bonus Feats. Which one of the two of us was making that baseless "but it's RAW!" argument?
You know these forums are here to find RAI primarily(how the game is intended to be played).Yes. Except in the rules forum.
You have this strange idea that RAI and RAW aren't the same thing a vast, vast majority of the time apparently.
So with the information you now have what do you think the PDT will say is the rule once they chime in?They may very well say that you can't use a bastard sword in one hand at all if you don't have EWP. They cannot say that you can't use a large one in two hands without proficiency, because MWP gives you proficiency because you're using it two handed. To make it otherwise would require an errata, an actual change in how the rules work. And if they do, they better think the implications of their chosen wording through!
Except they've done exactly that. James Jacobs did. He explained in in the post explaining the Iconic Character.
Your example is also poor because there are laws against killing people and the shooter would need an exception to be able to bypass that law.And PF has rules on using one-handed weapons in two hands, and there would need to be an exception in the bastard sword description to be able to bypass that rule.
Good thing there is then, huh!
|
|
I think 20% of the posts belong to Malachi because the rest of us have hidden these silly arguments. Malachi still believes he can reason with you guys, but the rest of us have given up.So, did you hide the post that had this:
It really isn't a silly argument when we have an FAQ that supports our position.Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
—Jason Bulmahn, 07/08/11
I'm sorry, but imagine for a moment that JB thinks that you can use a BS in one hand at -4.
The question was about which proficiency: martial or exotic?
He gave the answer, which requires a precise 'exotic'. But the normal way people talk about proficiency is 'can I use such and such a weapon', when we know that the lack of proficiency doesn't stop us using it.
So this quote is supporting evidence, I grant you, but nowhere near conclusive.
And not being allowed to use something in one hand does not mean that you can't use it in two, even if it's large.
Fret, Please feel free to chime in on the question I asked Wraith.
Incidentally, if you read it, by the 3.5 standard Amiri can't use the larger sized BS at all per that FAQ.
a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So obviously, even with this FAQ something has changed for PF because it's her basic weapon option at 1st level.
The only thing that would justify this is that it is now always considered a 1 handed weapon.
It was actually discussed in the other thread, but has since gotten buried. The obvious answer is that what changed is that having the feat now would allow you to wield oversized weapons. Amiri can do it because, per James Jacobs, she specifically allowed to by her possession of the EWP feat. That's why I've said the implication seems to clearly be to treat them as two-handed weapons for the purposes of who can use them and how when you don't have the feat. The feat part likely has been dropped a few times because we've consistently been talking about nonproficient characters.
But to me, that's the most sensible explanation.
EDIT: For the sake of clarity and completeness, I'd also said that I'd probably be fine with a small character wielding a medium Lance, so long as s/he was mounted and using both hands.
|
|
Fret, Please feel free to chime in on the question I asked Wraith.
Incidentally, if you read it, by the 3.5 standard Amiri can't use the larger sized BS at all per that FAQ.
a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So obviously, even with this FAQ something has changed for PF because it's her basic weapon option at 1st level.
The only thing that would justify this is that it is now always considered a 1 handed weapon.
Go read the very first post in this thread. We all know that something has changed, but we don't exactly know what has changed because the devs haven't told us. This was precisely the reason why I started this thread in the first place.
@ Wraith ... I think this part got lost in the edit timing.
"these are listed here, in this area, but they are really this" doesn't mean that they made a mistake? and then clarified how it was intended you should actually treat use them as that other item?
And, incidentally, if you read it, by the 3.5 standard Amiri can't use the larger sized BS at all per that FAQ.
a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.So obviously, even with this FAQ something has changed for PF because it's her basic weapon option at 1st level.
My point was only that there was not 3.X change that was about to get made, but never happened as you claimed.
You know these forums are here to find RAI primarily(how the game is intended to be played).Yes. Except in the rules forum.
That is not true. Otherwise my track record would not be so good. How else do you think I come up with the same answers that the devs do, and if you check their answers when they chime in they give you RAI, even when it goes against RAW.
You may have missed it, but RAI is the standard. We just try to use RAW to prove RAI.